Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Delay in issuing the show cause notice did not defeat the FEMA contravention claim because the company had been alerted early and still failed to produce exchange control copies, bills of entry, or any other proof that goods were imported against the remittances. The Tribunal therefore sustained the finding of contravention of Section 10(6) read with Regulation 6(1), distinguishing authorities relied on by the appellants on their facts. It also upheld separate liability of the Managing Director under Section 42, since he was responsible for the company's business and showed no due diligence to prevent the breach. The penalties on both appellants were, however, reduced as excessive.
Delay in issuing the show cause notice did not defeat the FEMA contravention claim because the company had been alerted early and still failed to produce exchange control copies, bills of entry, or any other proof that goods were imported against the remittances. The Tribunal therefore sustained the finding of contravention of Section 10(6) read with Regulation 6(1), distinguishing authorities relied on by the appellants on their facts. It also upheld separate liability of the Managing Director under Section 42, since he was responsible for the company's business and showed no due diligence to prevent the breach. The penalties on both appellants were, however, reduced as excessive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
